pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[Will]

I'm surprised this is such a big deal for so many people. I hardly noticed that 3.x was OG. I couldn't care less if 4e is either. To each their own, eh?

Oh sure. The thing is, this had many subtle effects. Here's one: I can go to d20srd.org at any time and check rules without digging through books. Here's another: if I felt like it, I could cut/paste stuff from d20srd.org (or some other source) and make a 'cheat sheet' of useful rules for my character. Or just paste into my character sheet snippets about how each spell works. Or spell descriptions for spell cards. Or...

Another advantage was the security of knowing that if something was published under the OGL, it was safe. WotC could never come along later and say 'eeeeh, we changed our minds.' It fostered a lot of growth and sharing of ideas. Current GSL, notably, is not perpetual. (at least as per last information on it; who knows, that might change)

Now that might not affect some, or even many, folks. My view is that the business model of OGL reaped a LOT more rewards for WotC than it cost, and the shrinking back to standard business practices is a real shame; it looked like WotC might actually be figuring out business in the 21st century. But, no, it'll have to be pulled kicking and screaming with the rest of publishing.

 

[hong]

Did someone on the Dungeons and Dragons website insinuate that someone else was a nerd?

I'm not even sure how that works.

I hate it when somebody else steals my schtick. So PLEASE DO NOT STEAL MY SCHTICK.

 

[Alzrius]

Yup, 3e was successful. But, that's not the same as saying the OG movement was. As far as D&D was concerned, by this time last year, you had less than five companies producing OGL material for D&D. And that's counting Green Ronin which produced what, 5 or 6 Bleeding Edge modules last year for 3.5.

This is patently untrue. Paizo's Game Mastery modules were being released, as were Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics. Ptolus from Malhavoc Press was still going strong. Necromancer Games released City of Brass, and White Wolf had put out Monte Cook's 3.5 World of Darkness. Kenzer Co. still, I believe, had some 3.5 Kingdoms of Kalamar books, and were certainly still selling them. You mentioned Green Ronin already. Mongoose was still releasing 3.5-based books, particularly under their Flaming Cobra imprint, and Paradigm Concepts was also putting out new Arcanis products. And that's just off the top of my head.

And, by the way, judging the Open Gaming movement by the success of 3.5 OGL material is completely fallacious. The fact that the Open Gaming movement grew beyond 3.5 and allowed whole new games that deviated from the base 3.5 system - such as True20, M&M, RuneQuest, etc. - is the biggest indicator there is of the Open Gaming movement's success.

Outside the pdf market, there was pretty much no 3rd party D&D support anymore.

Beyond having already proven that untrue, you can't write off the PDF market. It may not make huge companies, but having a back catalogue of always-available products, and allowing for easy distribution, isn't something that can be ignored.

So, given that pretty much nobody was supporting D&D anymore, what sense does it make to hope that companies will support 4e?

If by "nobody" you mean "everybody"...

Never mind the fact that the new GSL is apparently pretty much as open as the old STL, which is what drove the OGL movement in the first place.

No, the OGL drove the OGL movement. The d20 STL had a bunch of extra restrictions that people quickly grew to chafe at as time went on, hence why we saw companies stop using it as they did things like create new stand-alone systems, make books that dealt with topics that didn't live up to "community standards," etc.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table.

And in that way it is very much like the laundry list of "major problems" with the vastly successful third edition games The great majority of which never once made an appearance at my table. That isn't to say that 3E didn't have some problems. It certainly did. But if we're gonna play the brush everything away as internet smoke game, then 3E is going to come out way way better off for that trade. IMO.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

And in that way it is very much like the laundry list of "major problems" with the vastly successful third edition games The great majority of which never once made an appearance at my table. That isn't to say that 3E didn't have some problems. It certainly did. But if we're gonna play the brush everything away as internet smoke game, then 3E is going to come out way way better off for that trade. IMO.

No doubt. 3e was a great game, and I staunchly defended and praised it for years. Just because I think 4e is going to be an improvement doesn't mean that I buy into all the half-baked slams made against 3e in the last eight years.

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to brush away all 4e criticisms -- or even all of pawsplay's -- as "smoke". But the minion bar brawl one strikes me as very much in the same category as 3e's sack of rats and blindfolded kobold. I just can't see the string of decisions that would lead to such a thing happening at an actual table.

 

[Wolfspider]

Yeah, i understand that everybody is welcome to share their personal thoughts about 4E with us here...but reading a collection of (highly subjective) dislikes of one member every now and then just becomes a bit... tedious after a while.

So what are YOU doing here?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The idea that accepting something could ever be more beneficial to the creators then criticism is beyond backwards. By sitting still, nodding, and just politely accepting everything, all you're doing is breeding complacency and the complete lack of ambition. A person should never just sit back and think "Well, things are the best they'll ever be," they should always strive for improvement.

Heck yar! "Whining on the Internet" is where a good 3/4ths of the 4e changes are coming from, I'd wager.

So let's go down the list, since I don't think my deal is broken.

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.

I'm comfortable with it as an abstract simplification of play that actually has a different meaning in the world itself. Orc minions don't have 1 hp really, they just have 1 hp functionally. There are some fiddleybits about minions that I'm not too happy with, but that's not one of 'em.

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

I actually really like this. Swinging two swords like a maniac is awesome, and it should require some "awesome points" (feats, whatever) to get.

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...

I'm more with you here. I have MASSIVE apprehensions about the MM. The humanoid entries look like they'll be kind of badass, but there are so many freakin' phantom fungi in 4e that it's giving me a headache. And a lot of monsters that were awesome that have had the awesome sucked out of them for no obvious reason.

Part of this is why I'll be waiting 'till October, probably. When the 3rd party stuff comes out, we're going to see the Tome of Horrors and (probably soon thereafter?) the Advanced Player's Guide for 4e. I'm fairly sure that the first will basically replace my MM, while the latter will make my PH "complete." Until then, I'll get free stuff in the Rules Compendium beta.

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?

I'm kind of with you, here. I want there to be a place for a basic attack. Anything at-will should ideally, IMO, have a trade-off vs. your standard attack. It doesn't really look like we're getting that, which is a bit irksome. Not enough to be a deal-breaker for me, though, because it's still lots of fun going around zotting all day long, so I can't get that worked up about it.

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.

Heh, yeah...I will miss them, but I actually have a lot of fun designing stuff, and some experimental illusionists look to be something that's going to be a lot of fun for me to tinker with, so it's not a deal-breaker for me per se. Even if I don't get around to it, there's plenty of options to try out, I'm not too worried about those two specifically.

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

Eh. I can't get that worked up over fiddly first-level stat mods that are eclipsed in five levels anyway.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

I'm with ya, here. I'm pretty sure eladrin will get nuked when I start up 4e-ing. It'll kind of depend on how awesome the rest of the fey world is and how much I think I need a "mediator."

*Too much ZOWIE. I don't need every dungeon crawl to turn into Kill Bill meets Sailor Moon.

No, I want that.

*The end of D&D's participation in open gaming. They had the chance, they blew it. And for what?

This is a big blow, but it's still "good enough" for me. I'm going to ramp up my support of open gaming outside of D&D, though. True20 and Pathfinder are both going to become things I follow closely, and I'm looking forward for the first wave of OGL that implements 4e ideas and makes them open, since the mechanics can never be closed.

 

[Stogoe]

It disturbs me that "disliking somethings about 4e" somehow automatically equates to "whining."

It disturbs me that misrepresenting the available facts about 4e and then complaining about the ensuing distortions is somehow viewed as valid.

 

[Fifth Element]

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

If it's not really different (which I agree with for the most part), why is it a dealbreaker?

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

The idea that accepting something could ever be more beneficial to the creators then criticism is beyond backwards. By sitting still, nodding, and just politely accepting everything, all you're doing is breeding complacency and the complete lack of ambition. A person should never just sit back and think "Well, things are the best they'll ever be," they should always strive for improvement.

Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be abrasive to support the less popular point of view. But it happens all the time, and it's why I don't take people seriously when they argue with dislike rather than in spite of it.

This is PRECISELY the kind of broad brushing Gnome Works is talking about. It comes off as arrogant, as if you're saying "Oh, I'm sure if they could speak INTELLIGENTLY those people who dislike 4th could have reasonable conversation, but those unreasonable brutes just can't."

I suppose I could go back to my post and make sure that it's clear that I'm referring specifically to those people who flame 4th edition (or people who flame 3rd edition) without showing reason or objectivity, but I think it was pretty obvious, and if it wasn't, it will be by the time you finish reading this sentence.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It disturbs me that misrepresenting the available facts about 4e and then complaining about the ensuing distortions is somehow viewed as valid.

If the facts are easily available, then it should be extra easy for a person to prove them, instead of sitting back and just going "Whiners!"

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

*1 hp minions. The concept works in some games, but in D&D, it does not, because hit points already measure minionness.

It would seem that they don't, by WotC's definition. The point of minions is to create a class of faceless, nameless orcs that Legolas can kill instantly because he's Legolas and they are orcs, but they can still hurt Legolas if they get too close, rather than just auto-miss. It isn't particularly realistic, but it doesn't have to be.

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

I don't appreciate the fact that two-weapon fighting isn't seem to be available without using powers...of course, we don't know that that's true. It's an assumption.

*The removal of monsters from the MM that have been there since the beginning and will likely be a part of 4e. While I can guess you intend for me to become a sourcebook junkie, it's considered a little crass to flat-out tell someone they will be buying a new MM every year or so just to keep up. Next time? There won't be no next time, for that was th' last time...

This is definitely a opinion thing that can't be argued with. I don't know what all monsters are in the MM, so I don't know if I approve. However, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the designers weren't thinking "let's just throw some random monsters in there, for the heck of it." Every edition has opted for different monsters in the core monster manual, and each time there was a reason.

*Wizards as infinite energy machines. I just can't abide wizards zotting all day long. What's wrong with using a crossbow now and then like an honest person?

'Cuz it isn't what Wizards are meant to do in a setting chock-full of magic. I approve of Gandalf, the dude who was full a Wizard and acted more like a Fighter or Cleric; but the setting was filled with passive magic, not active. The Vancian magic system was incredibly silly, and this is better--especially for settings that have lots of magic--even if it has its problems.

*No gnome illusionists. Gnomes are barely there, as monsters, and forget about illusionists. I started on Basic D&D; gnome illusionists were something I felt AD&D got you that I thought was valuable.

Personal preference. I feel that good, "realistic" effects of illusions would require intensive collaboration between player and DM, which toes the line between who is and isn't in control.

*No penalties. Yeah, right. If you don't get the same bonus someone else does, that's a penalty. Call it what you will. It's just a penalty that goes to 11.

If you don't like it, you can always change the point-buy method or make it 4d6 drop highest or whatever you want. This way WotC can emphasize more than one ability score, which adds to the character of races and makes me happy.

*Common PC races that teleport very often. Yuck.

Sorry that upsets you.

 

[ryryguy]

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting. Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.

Why do people feel so strongly about this? I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se. It does have a certain thematic symmetry. But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs. "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action. Having two weapons and the right training (feat) might enable more feints and swings, translating perhaps into a game abstraction of a bonus to hit, and a resulting boost to average damage as a tradeoff for not carrying a shield. This has a similar outcome to enabling two attacks; perhaps also advantages in ease of play (one attack roll vs. two is quicker, maybe easier to balance). Yet I think to the "two attacks" crowd it's just not going to be satisfying. Somehow, "two attacks in the round" has been transformed from a game mechanic almost into reality. Taking away the two attacks is like denying reality.

A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

.... I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se. It does have a certain thematic symmetry. But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs. .....
A slow guy with a greatsword gets as many attacks in a round as a quick guy with a dagger... why doesn't this "lack of realism" get anyone upset?

This argument here highlites the problem with people being too obsessed with a simulationist style of game. To many people, the idea that having a weapon in each hand is more "realistic" because that is the way they have always imagined it. This comes from D&D "teaching" all of us that this is how it works. For many real life fighting styles, the extra weapon just allowed better feints or extra defense, not any weird idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment". The idea of extra attacks was a fun but exploitable gamist interpretation in previous editions. I was so good that almost everyone had to have it (that or power atack). This just devolves into everyone being the same. I am glad that the gamist constructs of 4e are putting more character concepts on even footing. Sword and board deserves some love, along with an einhander concept. Abstraction, to a degree, makes for a more diverse, fun, and smoother gaming experience in my opinion. And it works very well, to quote Hong, as long as you don't think too hard about fantasy.

 

[Will]

I like the idea of one-hit mooks that can be built more powerfully.

The problem, in 3e, with throwing a horde of low-hit point creatures at a moderately leveled party is that the horde's hit bonuses and damage are so low they pretty much just stand there waiting to be hit.

It'd be more interesting (to me) to have some hordes of dangerous creatures that remain mown down by the party.

 

[Darth Cyric]

I like the idea of one-hit mooks that can be built more powerfully.

The problem, in 3e, with throwing a horde of low-hit point creatures at a moderately leveled party is that the horde's hit bonuses and damage are so low they pretty much just stand there waiting to be hit.

It'd be more interesting (to me) to have some hordes of dangerous creatures that remain mown down by the party.

Well, to be fair, the 3e low HD creatures could all use Aid Another. But yeah, 4e's minions seem far more interesting overall.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Nevermind that those who sing 4e's praises are not required at all to provide any amount of rational argument or thought into why, that their arguments tend to fail just as poorly as some of those made against 4e.

Some of us have chosen to be positive about the game we enjoy. That is a rationale in and of itself. As I said, it is a matter of opinion and whichever chosen is that person's prerogative.

You may interpret a positive attitude however you wish.

 

[ryryguy]

This argument here highlites the problem with people being too obsessed with a simulationist style of game. To many people, the idea that having a weapon in each hand is more "realistic" because that is the way they have always imagined it. This comes from D&D "teaching" all of us that this is how it works. For many real life fighting styles, the extra weapon just allowed better feints or extra defense, not any weird idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment".

Exactly... what I find so fascinating is how you can go from the idea that "this is how it works" to that idea of "an extra chance to whack someone in an arbitrary time segment" being the only way it can be modeled. To the point where somebody in another thread, FallingIcicle I think, was suggesting that you try getting two kitchen knives and seeing if you couldn't stab faster than with just one knife. I mean, how does what I do in my kitchen with one vs. two knives translate into "attacks" in a "round"? There are no "attacks" nor "rounds" in my kitchen...

There's a cool factor to two-weapon fighting and I don't want to see it gone, just better balanced vs. some of the other options like you suggest. And if part of the way the designers accomplish that goal is to keep the "two attacks" option very limited, that's fine by me.

Finally I think folks maybe be underestimating the benefit from the rule that you can attack (once) with either of the two weapons without penalty. It's not going to come up a whole lot, but in some cases it will provide a useful option, and in those cases it's an option anyone can use without a feat or anything. Of course in real life all people aren't so ambidextrous, but so what?

 

[pawsplay]

I find this "two weapons must grant two attacks" notion sort of interesting. Pawsplay is definitely not alone - FallingIcicle was pushing this very vehemently in the weapon preview thread.

Why do people feel so strongly about this?

Maybe it has something to do with 15+ years of combat sports experience that tells me two longswords is better than one longsword. For much of history, two weapons has been the preference. A single weapon is used for some kinds of dueling. A shield is useful for some kinds of warfare. But for individual combat, you want a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Not using one hand for attack would be like going into a boxing match and only using one hand for punching.

I mean, I don't see anything wrong with a two weapons -> two attacks mechanic per se. It does have a certain thematic symmetry. But when you get down to it, D&D combat is full of abstractions and gamey constructs. "Attacks" are really an abstraction... we know that "one attack" might represent several feints and swings in the imaginary action.

I'm completely okay with that, but wielding two weapons with some reasonable level of skill should be an advantage. Which currently it is not. And since in D&D you could have a situation where one weapon does flaming damage and the other crits extra hard, using some kind of mechanic that involves two separate attack rolls is probably best.

 

[pawsplay]

Honestly, that thread supplies pretty much a textbook example of a problem that only exists on the internet, and will almost certainly never come up at the table.

Once again, I am startled to learn that other people play RPGs apparently in an entirely different fashion than I do. Just as an example, the campaign I'm running now kicked off with the PCs joining a team of dwarf soldiers fending off an attack by goblins. If I give the goblins and the dwarves 1 hp, strange things happen. And if I don't, then the minion rules have not assisted me in the encounter design at all. It's just a really bad design. The only advantage is that you can say, "Well, they die in one hit, so that's pretty much like having 1 hp," which is a conclusion most DMs can handle on the fly. What I want in the MM is stats for stuff I would prefer not to have to make up on the fly.